Chapter 6 Chapter 6
2. AN HISTORICAL SURVEY OF THE OBSERVATIONS AND DEBATE ABOUT THE CONCEPTS OF GOD IN AFRICAN TRADITIONAL
CHAPTER 2
2. AN HISTORICAL SURVEY OF THE OBSERVATIONS AND DEBATE
and its relevance to the unfolding religio-cultural, socio-economic and political life and the quest for liberation in southern Africa.
2.2. 'God' in Africa: Africa as an 'Object' Studied by Outsiders
In this subsection I begin with the observations of the study of ATRs and Africa by 'outsiders'. The following comments describe how Africa was depicted by missionaries and colonial administrators.
In Rattray 's (1916: 17 - 23) studies, he acknowledged the presence of a Supreme Being inATRs. Taylor (1963: 24) observed that Africans desire the 'Ultimate' God, though he acknowledged 'God' being recognized among Africans, but this was as though 'God' in Africa is not the 'Ultimate' one as 'God' would be conceptualized in European Christianity. From Taylor, we deduce that there was 'God' in Africa, who was either another different Deity from the Christian one, or 'God' in Africa was an incomplete deity.
Taylor acknowledged that some African tribes do worship 'God'; that some have no shrines; that sacrifices could be detected and yet that all this was not sufficient.
Apparently, 'African ecclesiology' was strange and different from 'Euro-Christian ecclesiology' which had churches and altars as places of worship.
Taylor (1963: 245) maintained that African concepts of 'God' were influenced by missionary adoption of vernacular names to designate the God of the Bible, and that this cemented the concept of 'God' as supreme creator in Africa . In other words, the African concepts of 'God' were unlike those of the God of the Bible. The translation of the Bible into vernacular languages dressed the supposedly 'inadequate' concepts of' God' in Africa with the alleged 'adequate' concepts of the' God' of the Bible. In other words, ATRs learned from European Christianity that 'God' is supreme, creator and worthy of Christian worship.
43
On the other hand, Tempe1s (1959) was ofthe opinion that 'God' in ATRis the same deity as that presented in Christianity, that divinities and spirits are mediums linking 'God' to humans and that 'God' was at the most pronounced as vital force. In other words, what missionaries declared was not new in Africa.
Smith (1950: 22) contended that the African 'High God' may not be the 'God' of a 'strict monotheism'. 'Strict monotheism' I would imagine constitutes One and only true' God', who is not like other' Gods'; before this' God' all others non-' Gods', or they are all false Gods. In Pritchards' (1956: 107) view, 'lesser spirits' are refractions of , God' . The notion of 'so-called 'lesser spirits' is found in West African and some southern African cosmologies. 'Lesser spirits' , here, could be nature spirits, Ancestors, divinities and other African so-called functionaries of 'God'.
Lienhardt (1961: 29) studied the Dinka people's notions of'God'- the nhialic (=
'God', in Dinka thought). According to Lienhardt (1961: 29) the nhialic is not identical to the Western notion of 'God'. In other words, the Western notion of
'God' is different to the Dinka notion of God. ForParrinder (1954), West African religion does have a concept of 'God'. Yet, in contrast, according to Chidester's (1992) observation, the missionaries, colonial administrators and Western anthropologists declared that Africans had no concept of 'God' before they were conquered and brought under colonial rule.
When Africans were totally under the control and domination of missionary Christianity and colonial administration, Africans were rewarded with some faded concept of 'God' (Chidester 1992). When Africans rise up to retaliate against missionary Christianity and colonial rule, they would once more be declared a people with no 'religion' or concept of 'God'. Whether the Africans had concepts of God or not was dependent on the opinion of the missionaries and colonizers. In this I observe that, on one hand, it was said that Africans had a glimpse of 'God' and, on the other, they had no concept of 'God'
44
2.2.1. The Responses of African Christian Theologians and Other Scholars
Okot p'Bitek's ( 1971: 1 - 2) response was that the reports of the missionaries and colonialists were meant to justify colonialism in Africa. Magesa's (1998: 28) response to these missionaries and colonialists' reports was that they were a paternalistic condescension prejudiced by nineteenth-century scholarship, typical of a colonial mentality. According to Comaroff and Comaroff (1991: 200), missionaries and colonialism as demonstrated through observations of African deities were about the absorption of indigenous peoples into the capitalist mode of production emerging in Western Europe, with a particular focus on British mercantile industrialization.
With the rise of mercantile capitalism in northern Europe during the sixteenth century, authentic and reliable knowledge about human beings became a commodity that was valued for its utility in the work of trading or fighting with unfamiliar people all over the world (Chidester 1991: 1). Knowledge about ATRs and peoples of Africa, including their political and social systems, was needed for the European colonial strategy of conquering and converting Africans. Mudimbe's (1988: 20) response was that the missionaries and colonialists' studies and reports about ATRs and Africa were speaking neither about Africa nor Africans,
... but rather justify the process of inventing and conquering the continent and naming its 'primitiveness' or disorder; as well as the subsequent means of its exploitation and methods of its 'regeneration' (Mudimbe 1988: 20).
In my understanding, according to Mudimbe (1988: 20), studies of ATRs and Africa was about 'naming'; a construction of ATRs and Africa in terms of missionary- colonial administrator-Western-anthropologist-thought. The picture of Africa and ATRs drawn was 'Africa and ATRs in the image of Europe'.
45
For Idowu (1873: 353) the study of ATRs was a misguided exercise or purpose which led to the unfortunate introduction of a completely new God who ( seemingly) had nothing to do with the past of Africa. In my reading ofSetiloane (1976; 1989) the problem with missionaries, colonial administrators and Western anthropologists was that they did not understand the nuances of African culture and language and thus devalued the currency of MODI MO (= 'God' in Sotho-Tswana).
After the whole process of Christian mission and colonization, Mugambi (1992: 36) says: " ... mission schools taught that all people were created in the image of God, and at the same time the Europeans considered themselves fuller humans than the Africans". In other words the studies of ATRs by missionaries and colonialists was about the dehumanization of Africans. In other words, the picture of ATRs and Africa drawn by missionaries and colonial administrators was unrecognizable to Africans.
2.2.2. 'God' in Africa: African Theologians and African Scholars' Propositions
African theologians and scholars denounced the picture of Africa drawn by missionaries and colonial administrators. What picture of ATRs and deities did African theologians draw?
Danquah (1944: 89), in his book The Akan Doctrine of God, proposed thatNyame (God inAkan religion) is the Great Ancestor. Though Danquah does show that the Akan have a clear concept of , God' apart from Ancestors and divinities, he makes a proposition that 'God' is the Great Ancestor after the Akan royal dynasty. For Danquah' Ancestors are merely mediators. He asserted that Akan religion is monotheistic. He rejected the idea that Akan religion was 'ancestor worship'.
Kenyatta (1938), in his work, Facing Mount Kenya East. said that the Kikuyu believe in one God = Ngai; giver of all things; giver of rain; the creator. He also rejected the
46
notion of the withdrawn God. Kenyatta (1938), was of the opinion that the Kikuyu communicate with Ngai at birth, initiation, marriage and death. In other words, he proposed that the Kikuyu observed all rites of passage from birth to death to be related directly to Ngai . He also rejected the idea that Kikuyu religion is 'ancestor worship' He proposed, rather, that the Kikuyu religion consisted of 'communion with ancestors'. The attitude of the Kikuyu to Ngai, on the one hand, is of awe and, on the other hand, of anamnesis to ancestors. Ngai was not confused with ancestors.
On the other hand, Mbiti (1978) is of the opinion that African religion is talking about one and the same God as the Bible. Mbiti (1978) has found similar natural, moral, intrinsic, eternal and ethical attributes of the Christian God in the deities of many African communities. For Mbiti (1991: 29), the God of the Bible has been at work in Africa and is one and the same deity ever known and worshiped by Africans in their various communities. Mbiti (1991) reiterates that missionaries did not bring God to Africa but that God brought the missionaries to Africa. In addition, Mbiti (1970:
58) says, every African community recognizes one God and one supreme being for all peoples - African and Western Christian. He says that concepts of God in Africa sprang independently out of the African reflection of God.
Idowu (1962: 18, 192) affirms that Olodumare God in Yoruba religion is creator; is supreme over all divinities and ancestors. The supremacy of Olodumare is never in doubt. Olodumare made the created order through divinities. Olodumare is the origin and foundation of creation; is eternal and is taken for granted in Yoruba religion. In other words, Olodumare has an axiomatic existence; is not questioned;
is key in the Yoruba belief superstructure.
Idowu (1962) too, rejected the notion of ancestor veneration as definitive ofYoruba religion. On the other hand, he affirmed that Christian natural attributes of God apply in African religion. He argued for the universality of God, i.e., that there is one God who is universal for all humanity. Idowu (1962) is a proponent of one African
47
religion (in one Africa. Addition mine) and that this universal 'God' is moral as well. For Idowu (1962) as is with Mbiti (1978), there is a similarity between Christian and African concepts of God. Idowu (1962), like Setiloane (1976), but unlike Mbiti (1978), lamented two Gods left in the hands of African believers. Idowu (1962), like Mbiti (1970), believes there should be and is continuity between the Christian and African concepts of 'God'. Unlike Idowu (1962) and Mbiti (1978), as it shall be shown in this thesis, I am concerned about accentuating that the African notions of God are continuous with Christian notions; and on the other hand that the African notions of God have a potential to be used as stepping stones towards the' higher' (Christian) understanding of God.
Nyamiti's (1987) contention, in his book African Tradition and the Christian God, was that Africans were capable of reflecting on God and that not only could western Christians learn much from African notions but also that Western Christians could learn from the Africans. Nyamiti (1987) holds a position of mutual inter-religious dialogue and reciprocal enrichment between the African and Christian notions of God. Neither of these two religions should enjoy a privileged advantage over the other.
Setiloane (1976: 8 Off, 83ft) says MOD/MO, whose name was tabooed, is one; is 'Ancient of days', is of the forefathers, is 'Master of all'. MODIMO addressed as IT is appropriate in Sotho- Tswana religion. IT is the giver of rain and harvest, and rain and harvest are from this source (MOD/MO). Ac(tording to Setiloane (1976), Badimo (ancestors) are ranked lower. His 'alibi' is that missionaries misunderstood MOD/MO and Badimo. Badimo are in-charge of the good ordering of society and have to do with respect and the conservation of traditions and customs. MOD/MO is the all pervasive DEITY.
The concern of this thesis is whether the concepts of the Christian God are different to the concepts of 'God' in Africa. I am also concerned whether there is a universal
48
God for all humanity. Actually, the topic of the critical comparison of the concepts of MODIMO in STR and the concepts of the Christian God, questions the proposition and the position of the notion of a 'universal God'. Whether there is or should be a continuity between Deity in Africa and the Christian God is another concern. African theologians referred to in this section have no unified opinion.
2.2.3. The Criticism of African Christian Theologians and Scholars by 'Outsiders' and Other African Scholars
Why did African theologians criticize 'outsiders', i.e., mISSIOnanes, colonial administrators and Western anthropologists? Why did African theologians not present a unified picture of deities in ATR? Westerlund (1985) says that African Christian theologians and nationalists were influenced by the political context oftheir time. In other words, Africans were inspired by pan-Africanism, African nationalism, negritude ideologies, negative reporting of travelers, anthropologists, missionaries and colonial administrators. African theologians were, in other words, not presenting researched notions of 'God' but were correcting the distorted picture drawn by missionaries and colonialists. By implication, the notions of 'God' as Africans hold them should still be presented.
This situation (in African political context) necessitated disapproval of the Western version of African Christianity and notions of 'God' in Africa portrayed by the outsiders. There was a pressing need to have an African Christianity that was unified, as there was a need to have a political African nationalism and pan-Africanism to resist the threat of Western colonialism. This need was prompted by the limitations of Western anthropologists and missionaries, who gave a repugnant picture of ATRs and who distorted the African political, religious and social systems. Besides a need for a unified African Christianity, there was a parallel need to portray a unified African Traditional Religion (ATR), i.e., one religion for one Africa. This proposed
49
'unified religion' would have been a buffer of counteraction and resistance to the 'one' Christian religion.
Another criticism against African Christian theologians was that their ideas were clouded by their Christian commitment and allegiance. Much as African Christian theologians did not like the writings, reports and ideas of the missionaries and colonialists concerning their depiction of ATRs, they still wanted Christianity to thrive in Africa. They were committed to the Christian religion. This influenced their attitude, approach and methods of studying ATRs. Somehow, African theologians' lack of criticality and empirical astuteness was compromised by their sympathy to missionary Christianity.
African theologians were prepared and committed to take missionary Christianity forward and to continue the Christianization of Africa. African theologians, some of them, as Christian priests, would carry on from where the missionaries left off.
African theologians were not offering an alternative message to Christianity nor an alternative Deity to the Christian God. In p'Bitek's (1971) thought, they would continue to dress African deities in Western Hellenic garments. In his words: p 'Bitek . (1971: 41) "African theologians dress up African deities with Hellenic robes and parade them before the Western world".
African theologians in their response to missionaries and Western anthropologists' writings about Africa and ATRs were ideologically driven. Apart from the context of the rise of African nationalism, African theologians were committed to do 'Christian theology' as an ideological driving force or 'propaganda' even 'as an 'apologetic' of Christian mission. African theologians did not study ATR in its autonomous right as a religion. They did not present, for example, concepts of African deities as Africans would express them or study ATRs with no intention of Christian evangelization. This reduced African theology to being a form of Christian evangelization of Africa.
50
African theologians added to the reduction of ATRs in that they studied ATRs in the light of Christianity. In other words, Christianity was the yardstick for 'true' religion.
ATRs were subjected to the apparent 'higher' standards of Christianity. Christianity was the norm and ATRs were the deviant, if not 'false' religions. Western Christianity and culture was made a standard by which African religions were measured (Shaw 1990: 345).
African theologians "study African traditional religions not as historians of religion nor as anthropologists, but as Christian theologians" (Bosch 1984: 21). As Christian theologians they produced a Christian theology about ATRs and not the 'theology of ATRs' (Westerlund 1993: 45). African scholars (and Christian theologians) are theologically inspired instead of being scholarly - seeking objectivity (Westerlund 1993: 45). The difference is that 'African theology' is a 'Christian theology' and it is not representing ATRs' religious thought forms. Another accusation unleashed against African scholars and African Christian theologians is that,
African scholars studying African religions have not broken any new ground either in the methods of carrying out research or in their interpretations of the data collected. The most active ones today are Christian priests, and they appear to rely a great deal on published sources. These works must be subjected to thorough and critical analysis before we can use them as authorities (p 'Bitek 1971: 69).
African theologians "... favored a normative as opposed to a non-normative approach, failing to distinguish between sermons and lectures, and parishioners and students" (Rackett 1988: 43). In addition to that, Horton (1993: 191) criticizes African theologians by saying that since they had put on 'ludaeo-Christian' spectacles, they have not presented us with genuine notions of ATRs. African theologians promoted ideologies of continuity between Christian notions of 'God'
51
and African notions of deities. They have over emphasized monotheism over otner salient realities in African cosmologies.
The over-emphasis of monotheism could have been provoked by a so called 'strict' Christian monotheism which needed to be countered by an equally 'strict' and 'strong' African monotheism. In the process of the 'battle' of , mono the isms' a distortion has resulted in that other pragmatic and essential aspects of ATRs appeared to be marginal and less important.
Westerlund (1985: 33 - 36) adds that, educationally, African theologians were influenced by their Christian theological studies. From the influence of Western systematic theology they placed 'God' at the apex of ATRs' and Ancestors at the bottom, thus giving the impression that Ancestors played a minor role.
African theologians were engaged more in the Christianization of ATRs than in representing ATRs (Westerlund 1985; 1993: 19). Westerlund (1993: 46) criticizes African Christian theologians and African scholars for over-emphasizing the similarities more than the dissimilarities between, for example, concepts of deities in ATRs and concepts of the Christian God or comparison between ATRs and Christianity.
Rosalind Shaw's (1990: 343) criticism was that African theologians were prompted by the defensive spirit to advocate 'sameness'. The same was Cox's (1998: 348) criticism. The same concern was raise by Westerlund (1985; 1993); that African scholars over-emphasized similarities at the expense of differences between Christianity and ATRs.
Cox (1998: 27 - 28) advises that African theologians need to adopt a phenomenological approach in their study of African religion without abandoning theological aptitude and astuteness. There is a need for sound African Christian
52
theology as much as there is a need for sound ATRs' theology. For this to happen, when studying ATRs, Christian assumptions and prejudices, must be consciously put aside as much as is humanly possible.
Bediako's (1992) notion of African religions as 'primal religions' gives the impression that African religions are forerunners to Christianity and, therefore, that ATRs must be succeeded, superceded and fulfilled in Christianity, thus removing the right of ATRs to stand in their own legitimate right. This is a reduction of the status of ATRs among other religions. As it is said, African theology has been a movement of reductionism. This is how N dlovu (1997: 23) describes this reductionism,
The descriptions and interpretations of African Traditional Religions (A TRs) given by many African Christian Theologians can also be described as inadequate, prejudiced, and derogatory (Ndlovu: 1997: 23).
A further reprimand goes against the notion of ATRs as preparatio evangelica. Ndlovu (1997: 24) finds it patronizing to subordinate ATRs to Christianity. He proposes that ATRs are viable religions which in themselves do offer salvation.
(preemptively, my contention would be that, it is beyond the scope of ATRs to speak of salvation as conceptualized in the Christian religion). That ATRs as a preparatio evangelica is a form ofpatronization.
The patronizing attitude fosters the tendency to subordinate A TRs to Christianity. ATRs are not perceived as viable religions through which humanity can gain salvation. Too often, ATRs are seen as a preparation for Christianity or an appendage of Christianity (Ndlovu 1997: 24).
Further, African theologians were criticized for gross, hasty generalizations; accused of moving rapidly from the particular to the universal, resulting in a distorted representation of ATRs (Ray 1976: 26). African Christian theologians ignored
53